« PreviousContinue »
one, which was allowed to be a diffolution of the marriage-bond, and that was—the woman's uniting herself to another man than her husband; this is the true fcriptural idea of 983 adulterý. The moment this happened, the husband was totally released from all * obligation to her, or union with her ; and, as appears also from the mind of God, afterwards declared in the farther promulgation, and more explicit revelation of His law, might not only put
* Dr. Ayliffe, as cited in Burn's Ecclef. Law, Tit. Marriage, says—that “ a divorce a vinculo matrimonii cannot be for adultery, for that the offence is
a juft and lawful marriage;" and cites I. Inft. 88.
This was the doctrine of Father Soto at the coun. cil of Trent, adopted by that Synod, and decreed, with an anathema, against all who should say that the church had erred in jo determining,
This doctrine of the “ contract not being diffolved “ by the adultery of the wife, so as that the husband “ might marry again,” was vehemently opposed by the Lutherans, who did maintain, that * adultery
a cause of divorce a vinculo matrimonii." However, this kingdom has adopted the doctrine of the papists-wherefore the Ecclefiaftical Courts can go no farther than a divorce a mensa et toro, in cases of adultery ; nor can the injured husband get rid of the adulteress, so as to marry again, without a special AB of Parliament, which now takes place of the Pope's dispensation for that purpose ;-a mode of remedy this, instituted of man, not of God-profitable to those who are to receive their fees-expenfive to those who are to pay them ;--fo expensive, as to be totally out of the reach of the generality, who are, by these means, deprived of that relief which they are
ber away, but, if he chose to bring her to a public trial, have her, and the man who defiled her, put to death. This, as appears from the whole tenor of the law as
ipjo facto entitled to by nature, reason, and fcripture. -Compare Matt. v. 31, 32. with Jer. iii. 8. and confider well to cut off"; and dronuerto fet loose, or release.
These words are of much stronger import than ápinuie-to send away, or dismiss from cohabitationwhich we are to understand to be the meaning of St. Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 11. guracīna un ediéves and ver. 12. uen doielw aulxv; this certainly answers to the idea of a dismission from cohabitation, or a divorce a menfa & toro
but ny 790- libellum excidii, or bill of cutting of, must be meant of the bond itself, and fo is it always to be understood in the Hebrew fcripture. This was in the husband's own power, without the interference of any, unlessof the witnesses before whom perhaps it might be signed, though certainly lawful in God's fight, in no case, where the marriage itself had been juft and lawful-παρεκλα λογα πορνειας, as the infallible interpreter of the divine law fpeaks, Matt. v. 32:--- except for the cause of fornication :- there the idea of divorce is expreted by απολυω-"Ος αν απολύση την γυναίκα αυτά, &c. Now απολυω fignifes to loose-set loose--or release as from a bond, and fo to divorce a wife by loosing the bond of marriage, which, that it might be done on account of fornication before, or adultery afterwards, is surely as clear as the fun; for saying that a thing may not be done, except for one reason only, is saying that for that reajon it may be done, or_language must lose its meaning. The fathers at Trent were hard put to it to make a decree upon the subject, for they had the scripture, the opinions of St. Ambrose, many of the Greek fathers, and the practice of the eastern church, against them; fo they Splitted the hair-not by condemning those who say that “ matrimony may be dissolved by adultery, and
delivered by God to Mofes, and by him delivered and explained to the people, was the only legal cause of divorce, where the marriage was at first just and lawful. This
“ another contracted”-which Ambrofe, &c. maintained ;-but, by condemning those who say “ the “church may err in teaching otherwise.” The truth of the matter was, that by declaring adultery to be no cause of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, they referved the lucrative bufiness of dispensation in the hands of the Pope; who, arrogating to himself a power of trampling on all the laws of heaven and earth, readily enough granted divorces, with or without cause, to fuch as were able to pay for them, either in money, or by adding to the power, wealth, and territory of the church.
In 1548 the Marquis of Northampton was divorced from his wife, whom he convicted of adultery; but the divorce being only a menfa & toro, the question was, whether he could marry another wife? And in the beginning of king Edward's reign a commiffion was granted to Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bithops of Durham, Rachester, to Dri Ridley, and fix more, to examine and try the question ; but before it could be determined, the Marquis married folemnly Elizabeth, daughter to Brooke Lord Cobham; for this he was put to answer before the council: He there faid, “he thought, that, by the * word of God, he was discharged of his tie to his w former wife; that the making marriages indiffolu" ble, was but a part of the popish law, by which " it was reckoned a sacrament; and yet the Popes,
knowing that the world would not ealily come “ under such a yoke, had, by the help of the Caro
nifts, invented such distinctions, that it was
uneasy thing to make a marriage void among “ them : that the condition of this church was very
hard, if, upon adulteries, the innocent muft either " live with the guilty, or be exposed to temptations
certainly was, as well where the woman's act of incontinency was committed before marriage, and found out afterwards, as where it was committed afterwards.
The word Topveic, which the Evangelift makes use of Matt. v. 32. and not Morgeld, which more particularly answers to the Hebrew 5983-adultery, has occafioned some to think, that it relates to an act done by the woman before marriage, but found out afterwards, for which he might put ber away, and not only that, but might have her stoned to death, if he chose to make her a public example, as appears Deut. xxii. 21. However this supposition may be true, yet it cannot be the whole truth, for the word
" to the like fins, if a separation only was allowed, " but the bond of the marriage continued undira 66 solved.”
However, as things had proceeded so far before the delegates, it was ordered that he and his new wife should be parted, till the matter should be determined. In conclufion, the whole question was divided into eight queries, which were put to some learned men (who, does not appear); who returned their answer in fupport of the fecond marriage.-In fine, the whole was determined in favour of the Marquis, and he allowed to cohabit with his second wife.- See this whole matter in Burnet's Hift. Ref. second part. p. 56, 57, 58. and Coll. to Part 2. B. i. N° 20.
Burnet, Art. Ch. of Eng. p. 289, 3d edit. obferves, that—" the notion of a separation for adul" tery, and yet the bond of marriage continuing, « was never known till the Canonifts brought it in; “ but the indissolubleness of the marriage, even for "
adultery, was never settled in any council till that " of Trent."
must equally relate to an act done after marriage or espousals, as appears from 70feph's intention with regard to his espoused wife Mary*. -He being a juft and holy man, and therefore not willing to marry a woman whom he thought to be an adulteress, yet unwilling to expose her to public shame, or to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Matt.
I take topveld, which we render fornication, to be like the word duabxpord uncleanness, a general term inclusive of all illicit commerce between the sexes, of which adultery is a species ; therefore used by our Lord to include every species of criminality in the wife, which is mentioned in the ld Testament: as--Firsther having had commerce with another man before any betrothment, espousals, or marriage with her present husband. See Deut. xxii. 13-21. Secondly—after being betrothed, ver. 23, 24. Thirdly—after marriage, ver. 22. IIopverd has evidently this
* Under the law of Moses, a virgin betrothed was reckoned the wife of him to whom the was espoused, and was to be stoned to death if she wilfully lay with another man. Deut. xxii. 23, 24.
+ The text fays per n ouvender du les—before they came together she was found with child, &c. Xuvend ein is--to have matrimonial commerce-congredi--coiri which consummates marriage, and makes the parties one flesh. Matt. i. 18. ! Çor. vii. 5. See Parkh. Gr. & Eng. Lex. and Leigh's Crit. Sacr. sub. voc. Συνερχομαι.